MovieChat Forums > Roman Polanski Discussion > Separate the person from the art..really...

Separate the person from the art..really???


I am just amazed at how some people are still allowed to work like this man. Sickening...

reply

I am more amazed at how many big name celebs think he should have his charges dismissed. There is no getting around the fact he drugged and sodomized a 13 year old, not sure how these supposed #Metoo celebs feel that is somewhat defensible.

reply

On top of that, I was reading where up to 11 women have come forward regarding misconduct and this includes at least one other underage girl.

reply

WOW. Eleven women? Last I counted there were only four. All of who have been debunked due to their own conduct. The first was debunked by the Swiss who investigated her allegations thoroughly and concluded she lied. Charlotte Lewis can be dismissed because she appeared gleeful with Polanski in Cannes in 1986 a scant four years after her supposed "incident". I have a stolen bicycle analogy I can float you about her if you wanna hear it. Marianne Barnard, the woman who claimed he raped her at 10, can be dismissed completely as a conspiracy nut who believes in Pizzagate and aliens. There is one who claimed Polanski assaulted her in the same "bedroom" as he did Samantha Geimer. The only problem is that Jack Nicholson said that woman was never in his home and the room was not a bedroom, but a television room with a couch. Any others I can debunk as well. Wherever you read about the "11" women is likely the same garbage heap that keeps calling him a rapist. He is not. He did not plead to that. He plead to ONE COUNT OF SEXUAL INTERCOURSE WITH A MINOR that is not rape or statutory rape.

reply

Um....not sure what the exact legal terminology for these offenses was at the time, but most likely a 13-year-old girl possibly could not "legally" give "consent" to a 43-year-old man. So really, think of that - he plead to intercourse with a 13 yr old girl - a 43-YEAR-OLD MAN!

And let's not forget she was given drugs.

Also, he fled the country when he learned he might be jailed. So evidently he did not serve his sentence.

Regardless of what it was pleaded down to, he still did what he did and never completed a possible sentence. He fled.

Lastly, how the victim feels nowadays that is her right because this is her life and if she feels he has been punished enough, then that is her right, but still, Polanski HAS NOT been punished for what he did.

reply

He plead down to a lesser charge but for all intents and purposes what he did would be considered statutory rape.

reply

He plead to the one charge that did NOT include the word "rape" because he refused to see it as rape. He still doesn't, and neither does she.... excepting when she wants to have it her way. So yeah, there's that.

reply

It doesn´t matter what he or she sees it as. What he admitted to, pretty much fits the exact definition of statutory rape. A drugged 13 year old can´t consent to sex, let alone sodomy. There is also evidence he groomed her beforehand and admitted his guilt by telling her not to tell anyone.

reply

She was not drugged. Toxicology found NO traces of any drugs in her system. ZERO.

reply

Well drugged or not drugged, it doesn´t matter. A sober 13yo can´t consent to sex with a 43yo man. Is that better?

reply

"A drugged 13 year old can´t consent to sex, let alone sodomy."

Hmmmmm yes she can... if the guy is also 13.

reply

"who believes in Pizzagate and aliens"

What's the problem with believing in aliens? I think NOT believing in them makes you a fucking moron.

Btw, how is that even an argument?

reply

She.wants it dropped. Isn't that enough?

reply

He should have served some time for what he did.

That said, I can't deny that he's made some brilliant films. Chinatown, Rosemary's Baby, the Pianist.

reply

I'm so glad I have this particular site bookmarked, because I've had to source it many times since the online commenters can't quite seem to grasp the truth. So here it is:

So you want to know what I think?

03 May 2018 Leave a comment

by samgeimer in Uncategorized

The Academy’s decision highlights the need for the misconduct and corruption in this case, not only in 1977, but as it has continued to this day, be IMMEDIATELY investigated. The Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office has refused to pursue justice, instead it continues to cover up the illegal and inappropriate activity in the Court, and in particular, its own office. DAs are not elected to seek the limelight celebrity cases afford them as preferable to serving the public interest. The disgusting behavior in the Los Angeles Districts Attorney’s office helped create today’s trend of accusations being the same as convictions, our Courts are diminished by their actions.



As for the Academy expelling a member who 41 years ago pleaded guilty to a single charge and served his sentence, it is an ugly and cruel action which serves only appearance. It does nothing to change the sexist culture in Hollywood today and simply proves that they will eat their own to survive. I say to Roman, good riddance to bad rubbish, the Academy has no true honor, it’s all just PR.


This comes directly from the blog by none other than Samantha Geimer, the so-called victim in this case. Here, you can read all about the fact she SUPPORTS POLANSKI yourself.

https://samanthageimer.wordpress.com/

You'll notice in the bit I quoted she said: ....41 years ago pleaded guilty to a single charge and served his sentence...... Don't let the fact she keeps supporting him and supporting him, and further supports him. But hey, keep having your own thoughts on the whole thing because that's all you have. I have the truth. She is telling people like you to shut it.

reply

So called victim? She's said she forgives him.

Fine. That doesn't change what he did.

reply

I forgive him too. Now let's send him to prison.

reply

The level of stubbornness on some people amazes me. Get the fuck over it already.

reply

Old post, but how did he serve his sentence? He fled the country because he thought the sentence was going to be harsher than what he was originally told.

Also, I've read that Geimer has had a lot of contact with Polanski and his allies in the entertainment industry. I can't help but wonder if she's a bit starstruck, all that attention from famous people has influenced her.

reply

Are you saying people should stop working with/for him, that people should stop going to see his movies, or that people should stop enjoying any of his films (even ones which came out prior to his crimes)?

reply

Crime. One crime which he's already paid for.

reply

He did not pay, he fled the country before he could serve out his penalty. An extremely lenient penalty at that. Everything that was supposedly was going to happen if he hadn´t fled is hearsay. I agree with some others, he 100% should have served time in prison.

reply

He did pay. According to the original prosecutor he did fulfill his duty to the State and the People of California. It's not up to a crooked judge who was facing backlash for his horrific behaviour to an actual rape victim he punished in another case he was on at the time. His country club cronies were giving him a hassle due to his treatment of her, that they told him if he went soft on Polanski he would more or less be expelled from the country club. He succumbed to outside pressure to punish Polanski outside of the SENTENCING GUIDELINES at the time. See, the statistics proved that no other man who plead guilty to the same crime in the previous year of 1976 spent one day in jail, let alone prison for it. Only one man had: Roman Polanski. That was the 42 day hold in Chino Penetentiary where Charles Manson and Charles Watson were serving time for the murder of Sharon Tate in 1969. Rittenband went above and beyond what is LAWFUL to sentence Polanski to a worse sentence than the guidelines allowed. Three COURT APPOINTED psychiatrists found him not a sexual predator, not likely to reoffend, and not a deviant. They advised no more prison time and to accept the guilty verdict and be done with it. Roger Gunson, the original prosecutor accepted that judgement from the prison and in close negotiations with Geimer's attorney and Polanski's felt Polanski should be done as time served. The only one who didn't was the aforementioned Rittenband who felt the three reports "whitewashed" Polanski and therefore he was going to sentence Polanski to more prison time. Again, no other man in the State of California ever spent time in prison for the count Polanski plead guilty to. He did serve his time. This according to the original prosecutor, and Samantha Geimer's own attorney. They were all pleased with the outcome. All Judge Rittenband had to do was bang the gavel and have it done. But no. He wanted to be seen as "doing his duty" when in all reality, he was a buffoon. Rittenband is solely responsible for this travesty. Roger Gunson has said so. Douglas Dalton has said so. Samantha Geimer has said so. Law reviews have said so.

reply

The fact you think a 42 day psych evaluation is just punishment for sodomizing a 13yo child says a lot about you imo. I couldn´t care less what legal technicalities led him to absconding the US. The man should have been in jail in the first place and I am glad someone was willing to pursue it further.

reply

I have the rape kit analysis. There was no penetration of the anus. It was intact and showing no penetration. No cuts, no contusions, no nothing. There was no fluid in her vaginal canal nor none in on her body where she claimed he ejaculated. You show nothing but your blind anger against a man who more than paid for his crime. And the ones who are "pursuing" it are guilty of crimes themselves. There is also the fact too Samantha Geimer wants the case dropped and Polanski exonerated. So yea, keep on keeping on with that lie of yours. You seem willing to accept what the press throws at you, not the truth of what actually happened.

Here is Samantha Geimer's letter to the current DA regarding her case. Please read:

[quote]April 21, 2017



April 21, 2017



Mrs. Samantha Geimer

c/o Silver & Field, LLC

2990 S. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 312

Los Angeles, CA 90064



Jackie Lacey, District Attorney of Los Angeles County

Michele Hanisee, Deputy District Attorney

Major Crimes Division

210 West Temple Street, Suite 1100

Los Angeles, CA 90012-3210



RE: The State of California vs Roman Polanski & Roman Raymond Polanski vs The Superior Court of Los Angeles



District Attorney Lacey and Deputy District Attorney Hannisee:



Attached please find my correspondence to you dated over 3 years ago, January 24, 2014, along with your reply, dated over six weeks later, stating your “preparedness” to proceed if the case was again brought before you.



My wishes that you act on my behalf as the victim in this case to investigate the misconduct that occurred fell upon deaf ears, along with my request that you act upon the instructions of the Dec. 21, 2009, Opinion of the Second Appellate Court of Appeal of the State of California, Second Appellate District. In particular, the aforementioned Opinion stated that the Court is deeply concerned that these allegations of misconduct have not been addressed.



Further, “Polanski’s allegations urgently require full exploration and then, if indicated, curative action for the abuses alleged here. Time continues to pass, and the delay in addressing this matter has already removed one participant from the ranks of the available witnesses for an evidentiary hearing on the judicial and prosecutorial misdeeds that have been alleged here. The passage of more time before this case’s final resolution will further hamper the search for the truth and the delivery of any appropriate relief, and it will also prolong the agony that the lack of finality in this matter continues to cause Samantha Geimer. We all exhort all participants in this extended drama to place the integrity of the criminal justice system above the desire to punish any one individual, whether for his offense or his flight.”



I have read the PEOPLES OPPOSITION TO: (1) RENEWED MOTION TO UNSEAL THE SWORN TESTIMONY OF DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY ROGER GUNSON; AND (2) MOTION TO RECONSIDER COURT’S APRIL 3, 2017 ORDER.



I am outraged that you continue to cover up the misconduct that has occurred in this case, which began 40 years ago and continues today. I have spent 40 years with a boot on my neck filled by one powerful man after another, standing on a 13 year old rape victim’s suffering to further their own purposes and to serve themselves, and sickened that it has now been filled by women.



You refuse to investigate the truth, you seek to hide testimony and defame those who produce relevant evidence and facts with accusations of criminal activity, facts you ignore to serve yourselves. I cannot help but see the irony of behavior that mimics the despicable behavior of our new administration in Washington, DC. So, I say to you, DO YOUR JOB! Stop making excuses, stop passing the buck, stop covering up what should be investigated and the very responsibility for which you were elected.



If you will not do the right, moral and legally required thing and stop covering up and withholding facts, I can only hope when the truth comes out as it always does, that you both are still around to have your reputations suffer as they should. You and those have come before you have never protected me, you have treated me with contempt, using a crime committed against me to further your own careers. You have treated Marci’s Law as you treat the victims who you are meant to protect, with disregard and callousness.



I know you will not help me, I know I mean nothing to you, I know the corruption in the Court and within your own department is something you have no interest in investigating. Because you are both part of it. I hope someday I will see the truth of all the egregious behavior I have had to tolerate at the hands of your predecessors and now you, will someday be known by all. Whether you feel any shame or not.

... continued


reply

Victims and those who commit crimes are not just wins and losses, not just notches in your belts. Celebrity cases should not be misused by those like yourselves for some limelight and career advancement. We have all heard that there is special place in Hell for women who do not help other women, I hope it is true. I have no hope that you will DO YOUR JOB and investigate crimes committed by “your own”. So, I will settle for hoping that you, as we all do, will suffer the consequences for your actions and your dishonesty. This is just another sad day for what should be the greatest and most equitable judicial system in the world.



With deep regret that as a crime victim I cannot count on either of you and with sadness for all the others you will harm along your way “to the top”.


Samantha Geimer

reply

First you were disputing his penalty, now you are disputing the fact the rape ever took place. So if the rape never happened according to you, why even bother disputing the penalty?

reply

Polanski admitted having sex with her, so not sure how the supposed "negative rape kit" has any relevance. He had sex with her according to both parties, straight from the horse´s mouth. He fucked a 13yo, it doesn´t matter whether she consented to it or not, a 13yo doesn´t have the mental capacity to agree to sex with an adult let alone a 43yo man.

reply

Even though I find annoying how some people just can't let go of the case, stop defending a rapist. He raped her, end of the story.

reply

Exonerated means absolved from blame or fault. I don't think Geimer has ever said anything like that. She stands by her claim that he drugged and raped her. She wants them to stop pursuing the case and wants people to move on.

Geimer was pretty drugged up, thanks to Polanski, when this happened. I don't think that if she is indeed wrong about actual penetration of the anus happening or wrong about him ejaculating, it hurts her credibility that much. At the very least Polanski drugged and committed a pretty major sexual assault. But we also have Polanski's own admissions.

Geimer's comments and request that they stop going after Polanski legally don't mean that the public have to forget he drugged and raped a 13 year old girl.

reply

I am curious, are you a sex offender yourself or do you just like defending them?

reply

I'm curious, do you actually read what people post. Or do you like your faux indignation?

reply

Well you have a history of defending famous sex offenders. So I wondered. Has nothing to do with indignation.

reply

I'm confused here....

From some quick reading on admissions by both parties (grand jury comments, biography), both parties agree sexual contact occurred? Correct?

And it is clear you are biassed when it comes to sexual assault investigations. Absence of evidence is not absolute proof the assault did not occur (which would seem to reinforce that this did happen because both parties said it did happen even though evidence you desire was not present).

Additionally, lack of rectal/anal injury does not mean assault did not occur - there could be reasons for that (not to seem callous or immature, but maybe Polanski is not well endowed or quite tiny).

But what it all comes down to, whether you like it or not, a 43-year-old man assaulted a 13-year-old girl. I do not know what sort of morality you find repulsive, but if this is not it, wow...just wow.

And Anjelica Huston...she should be ashamed as well.

reply

This is why I think he´s a sex offender, or he´s one of those people that just likes to argue regardless of the topic.

reply

Apparently Geimer was wrong about Polanski actually penetrating her anus, so the case is bogus? Even though we have Polanski's own admissions and the fact that he had her drugged up at the time.

reply

The Hollywood film industry is very... forgiving. So forgiving that one would think that huge numbers of people there had done illegal or immoral things, and don't think they're any big deal!

As for viewers forgiving Polanski or not, when I see him or hear his name I feel revulsion, so I don't want to see him or any of his work. But people have to make up their own minds whether they want to see his films, for their own reasons.

reply

Yes, because he is a free man. He served his sentence according to Samantha Geimer who should know more about her case than you. She supports not only Polanski's complete and utter exoneration, but his right to re-enter the United States a free man. Ah those technical details can kill one. She doesn't see revulsion. She sees a man who had no choice but to flee a corrupt system. Check out her Twitter feed if you disbelieve me. Here, I'll give you the direct link:

https://twitter.com/sjgeimer/with_replies

Her last post on the matter of Polanski:
Samantha Jane Geimer
‏ @sjgeimer

Our Justice system matters, the truth matters, corruption in a DAs office matters, corrupt judges matter, the rule of law matters, innocent until proven guilty matters, I know there is a lot going on these days but it's my place to take a stand.
3:33 AM - 5 May 2018


Samantha Jane Geimer
‏ @sjgeimer
Replying to @Nick__Desmond @nerdsidemedia @Daverbio

No, it's not the perfect headline. Using my assault as a teenager 42 YEARS ago, failing to mention the judicial misconduct that has left me to deal with these vulgar tweets, and then using me shit on a man who should be allowed to do his work, is not perfect, it is abusive to ME

it always comes back to the same thing, you don't care about the harm that's done unless it is salacious and sexy. A corrupt judge, a far more dangerous man, means nothing, because in truth, the victim of the crime means nothing to you. you are just another hypocrite
1:49 PM - 5 Sep 2019

reply

Prometheus,

I would never tell a victim how to feel or think. And I can only imagine the stress, pressure and mental anguish Ms. Geimer has faced these 41 years.

However, it still does not remove the fact that Polanski obviously received a sweetheart deal and was allowed to plead to something horrendous when other charges were appropriate.

At the basest level of all of this, a 43-YEAR-OLD MAN raped, yes raped, a 13-year-old girl while drugged, and from a timeline from the Associated Press, who fled before sentencing because he learned he faced probably incarceration. And to suggest a 13-year-old minor could give consent is ludicrous and disgusting.

I do not know what your ties to Polanski are, but your staunch defense of him and his behavior appear quite unusually strong.

reply

Ms. Geimer has gone through ZERO anguish over this. She got her payout in the 90s for her "distress".

Polanski did NOT receive a "sweetheart" deal. He got a sucker punch to the solar plexus. And the continued legal wranglings are that continued sucker punching. He plead to the charge all the lawyers saw fit. The sentencing guidelines saw fit. The psychiatrists who examined him saw fit. The only one who didn't see fit was the self aggrandizing judge who wanted publicity on the whole thing.

To let you know I have the court documents on all aspects of this case including the report from the rapekit. According to that there were ZERO fluids of his found on her body. None inside or outside her body. Her body was clean. When she was asked by the prosecutor if she'd washed, douched, had an enema and or bathed of any kind she said "No" to all questions. How was she so clean if she was "raped"? According to the swabs taken from the underpants (which no chain of custody could be proven) they contained a one quarter sized stain that was not a match to Polanski. It belonged, however, to a sterile man. Polanski is not sterile hence his fathering two children with his current wife Emmanuelle Seigner. No documentation was presented to court saying he'd had a vasectomy. So if it wasn't Polanski's, whose was it? There was also the nature of her 18 year-old boyfriend who she'd had sex with earlier that year. Who was not charged by the way. There was her mother's boyfriend in the house at the time. According to her she consented to having sex whenever and with whoever she liked. So there's that food for thought. As for the AP timeline, if you'd already paid for your crime, would you want to pay more for a crime in which no prison time was spent by other men the entire year before? He fled because the judge who'd reneged two other times before, could not be trusted. This from all involved including the original prosecutor. Did the AP timeline say that after that day in court when he planned to bring Polanski back and sentence him to a harsher penalty, did it also say that the prosecutor left court that day to file a brief with the court to have Judge Rittenband removed for his ILLEGAL CONDUCT? Did it say he got together with Polanski's attorney and Geimer's attorney to have Rittenband removed and have a judge seated who could rule without bias? Did it? Did it say in 2009 after Polanski's Swiss arrest, did it say that Roger Gunson sat for a deposition in which he stated Polanski had served the alloted time required and that Rittenband acted illegally. However, when the Swiss wanted that deposition in order to assess the extradition request, they were denied that document. Speaks volumes. So no, Polanski is not the villain here. He served his time.

My ties are to the truth of justice. Not persecution. I defend the truth. Not lies, innuendo, nor a judge seeking to make fame off of his court docket. I also defend Woody Allen from the same persecution from a vendictive ex hell bent on making sure he's ostracized from his livelihood. However, she refuses to look at her own brother who is in prison for three counts of child rape of eight year old boys.

reply

Wow. Just wow.

So you are saying his plea was what? Fantasy? He was beaten? Coerced?

As I read your replies I think of my own same age child and you know what? There is NO WAY a drugged 13 year old girl can give consent. And to me, it does not matter one iota if a victim states she did give consent or not at that age. My goodness, what mindset do you have when you consider that a 13 yr old girl can give consent to a 43-year-old man?

And I do not know the ins and outs of any sexual assault kit results and testing but do know this, the absence of DNA or fluids does not mean an assault did not take place.

As for Woody Allen, I suggest you update your opinions because just in the last 24 hrs his victim has had some words of her own to what happened to her regarding recent comments on his behalf by an actress.

reply

What a disgusting person you are.

reply

Disgusting. Distress in quotes? Wow.

Whether you are trolling or really believe this, its awful.

reply

"And to suggest a 13-year-old minor could give consent is ludicrous and disgusting."

She can... if the other person is of the same age.

reply

Victims don't determine punishment in the American justice system.

reply

Victims are allowed to make what are called VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENTS as to the level of injury the perpetrator has inflicted. Funny that Geimer stated then and continues to state the system and the Judge hurt her more than Polanski ever could. She even calls him "Roman". Don't know any victim who is on first name basis with her perp.

reply

Yeah really. What this isn't common sense to you? Art is already separate from the man who made it. It's as much its own entity as adult children are from their parents. Art's right to thrive and our right to enjoy it is not contingent on anything, especially the moral caliber of its maker. Let him pay the consequences for that and nobody else. Especially not the people who want to enjoy his art.

Besides do you know how many people are involved in the making of a film? The writers, editors, make-up artist, special effect coo-ordinates, the guy who drove the catering truck to the studio. The likelihood that a film isn't connected to a morally questionable person is extremely unlikely, especially since this is Hollywood. Let's just stop watching movies entirely.

reply

It's astounding how most of Hollywood stands up for Polanski, an admitted and convicted child rapist, yet they have cancelled Woody Allen, in spite of the fact that police detectives and child psychologists determined that the accusations against him were pure bullshit.

reply

I was taken aback by him saying that! I was like What do you mean by that?!
He had thses really deviant violent fantasies.

reply